Right of citizens to express political views

THE EDITOR: I wish to respond to the criticisms levelled at the Chief Justice (CJ) for his dissenting judgment in the Panday v Gordon libel case. The CJ is head of the judiciary of TT and it is unfair to criticise his judgment without having had the opportunity of reading it in its entirety.

Unlike Mr Christmas, I have done so (copies are available at the law library at the Hall of Justice) and to summarise the judgment as permitting Panday to call Gordon a pseudo-racist is a gross oversimplification. We cannot, for example, ignore the fact that Gordon fired the first salvo by telling Panday that “no one was perhaps more responsible for promoting racism in the country than he was.” What the CJ said was that this entitled Panday to reply with equal force and measure. For myself, I see nothing wrong with that. Gordon was fiercely critical of the UNC’s media reform policies, controlled a media empire and was a former Minister in Robinson’s NAR administration that had expelled Panday. By “descending into the political arena” Gordon, as a public figure could not expect that he would criticise Panday and deny him the right to respond. Like we say, “yuh cyah play mas an fraid powder!”

The CJ’s judgment turns on the issue of our constitutional right to express political views. This is the right of each and every citizen. According to the CJ, once the predominant motive and character, subject matter and tenor of the speech is political in nature, your constitutional right protects you. This, it seems to me, is clearly right lest the cut and thrust of political debate among politicians and public figures that adopt disguised political postures be thwarted.  This will be deleterious to our democracy, the wheel of which is greased and turned by the pressure of such debates. Before jumping to conclusions I strongly suggest people read the judgment of the CJ. Even if one does not agree with his conclusions, his analysis and reasoning are compelling.

DANE ROCK
Curepe